From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-54802-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FAE138010
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:00:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DC8621C0E4;
Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:59:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDA721C0A7
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:58:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so11861493pbb.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=Lf23UwSKpib/jZBxmp/1Ig/r3oxQdJtFRiwbpPK3zBY=;
b=qWQcQKraeQltEHXh0Mvitk2SDwv5GO39kEehR04ucyMP2LP41SEFWc4V7G64Fhft1c
U1h+a9cXmEnhbW2pIK+Wey85wmQfA3iienx2EttpbrDKwVrCpjZw3VLGV26FRXYCSqRZ
x2cyEhEyogbq36KSwWRz7Jp0VKg7vzVfSLfSaFaIjrPmUuMxMjwdAiVhi1QtC6AQcAXl
GaYxe5m8R+yC4Q7K0AlfUxGQhD0BfEdkHWOFvxqeMkdVpAWkeBXLhTrdAssrIQuoxyDP
fseyO3rYtDuUFeMGC8EhTrJgfb8YuyzGbZtLYAJrmpZMCKKbYjz8LF7pD3gVvuoM8Y0q
Zx1g==
Received: by 10.68.223.163 with SMTP id qv3mr326768pbc.101.1347962304533;
Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wn1sm8388999pbc.57.2012.09.18.02.58.22
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:58:35 -0700
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:58:35 -0700
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Message-ID: <20120918095835.GD5384@localhost>
References: <20120916135211.GC23030@localhost>
<201209180604.55067.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201209180604.55067.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt: 46e3192d-46f8-4158-8245-efad6deccf19
X-Archives-Hash: d02b99ddd7997ae62ea29055686552ab
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:51AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> A potential dev-libs/dep package
I assume this is a hypothetical package; if this is something out of
your personal eapi/repo, please state so.
> might have valid use case for USE flags related to USE_EXPAND="DEP".
> Your suggested syntax for types of dependencies in DEPENDENCIES would conflict with these USE flags
> after implementing ":" delimiter for USE_EXPAND-related USE flags.
Actually, that was both the intent, and I thought explicitly
clear/documented; 'dep' would be a PM controlled namespace- as I'm
pretty sure I stated in the doc, else in that email thread on the
subject.
Thus, yep, you got me, you can't create a USE_EXPAND/USE_GROUP named
'dep'.
I very, very strongly doubt that anyone ever would come up with a
scenario where this is required, and the alternative name is somehow
worse. Please give examples.
Also, you should keep in mind that w/ what I ultimately want for
USE_EXPAND, we'd have a couple other namespace that couldn't be used
by ebuilds/profiles.
Top of the head,
* arch; kind of a given, alternate addressing of x86 via arch:x86.
Would be added purely for consistency, although iteration of the
potential values would warrant the group existing.
* use; same reasoning as arch, added for consistency so the consuming
code doesn't have to special case things.
* phase; intentionally reserved should we ever decide to do per phase
restrict control (aka, turning userpriv off just for the test phase).
* license; Now, this one I *am* spitballing a bit- I'm not proposing
it, just frankly thinking out loud. If we had a license namespace
there, we could potentially mask out certain deps if the user
requested say pure bsd, or as a potential way to properly integrate in
our existing bindist support; keep in mind if the group existed, we
could use it in REQUIRED_USE also.
Either way, you get the idea; it was explicit that in fixing
use_expand, a few namespaces would be offlimits.
> I vote for a separate syntax for types of dependencies.
A separate syntax, or keeping dep:build? from conflicting w/ someone
wanting to use USE_EXPAND="DEP" ?
If you've got other critiques state them, else, while your opinion is
yours, I doubt anyone is going to agree with you that it's a deal
breaker.
~harring